Published on 10 May 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 27237/19
KYIVSTAR, PAT
against Ukraine
lodged on 15 May 2019
communicated on 21 April 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns alleged violations of Article 8 and Article 10 of the Convention mainly on account of the imposition by the Antimonopoly Committee, in November 2017, of a fine of around 1,700 euros on the applicant company – a telecommunications service provider in Ukraine – for its refusal to provide it with confidential data regarding two individuals between January and May 2015. In particular, the Antimonopoly Committee had requested the applicant company to provide information about any telephone numbers those individuals had used, any telephone numbers they had dialled or received calls from, and the relevant dates, time and duration of calls. According to the Committee, this was needed for its investigation of possible violation of economic competition regulations.
The applicant company’s appeal against the fine was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20 November 2018. The court found, inter alia, that the Committee had acted in accordance with Section 22-1 of the Antimonopoly Committee Act of 1993 and Section 34 of the Telecommunications Act of 2003 and that its actions had been necessary in the public interests of prevention, investigation and cessation of violations of economic competition regulations, since it had not been able to obtain the requested data in a different manner. The court also noted that the requested data was of technical nature and did not concern the content of communications of the relevant individuals.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable in the present case?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
4. Can it be considered that the applicant company has raised in substance a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the allegedly unlawful and unjustified imposition of a fine for its refusal to provide confidential data in its possession to the Antimonopoly Committee?
If so, has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on that account? Was that interference in compliance with the requirements of that provision?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy